So many interesting responses to the reading. Lauren C and Peter don't really like Book Business. Lauren C points out that the business is constantly evolving, and book Lauren C and Peter observe that Epstein is completely wrong about the book ATM idea. Of course there are truths in both critiques, but there are also ways to respond. First, it's true that the publishing business evolves, but it's also the case -- and this is what Epstein has observed -- that it evolves along with a lot of other parts of the economy, including bookstores, malls, and readers themselves. One of the mistakes people in the business keep making is that they think publishing is primarily about making money, and this perspective has, in Epstein's view, almost always led to bad outcomes.
As to the ATM issue, Epstein is, of course, hilariously wrong. But so is almost everybody who predicts anything related to technology. (Who could have predicted the Kindle?) And there is a sense in which he's right, though at a different level and location. Let's think about why he made the prediction in the first place. What would a book ATM model solve? It would allow books to be produced on demand for individual readers. It would reduce overhead (rental space and the like) and would solve the problem of overstock (now currently addressed by remainders, including book outlets devoted to remainders exclusively). It would produce a text electronically but would not produce an electronic text. Epstein's imagined future involves a change in distribution and a shift to electronic and individualized book making, but it is premised on the idea that people would rather read a book than a computer screen. Now, the Kindle and similar e-ink technologies solve the same problem. The book is downloaded rather than printed, but the text of the Kindle "page" is real text: it does not require a lit screen and so it does not have the problem of backlighting or glare.
There's another way in which Epstein's ATM model is taking hold, and that is with what is called Print on Demand publishing. In traditional publishing, the publisher estimates demand and prints that many copies plus a few more in the first "print run." The first print run for a Steven King novel is in the hundreds of thousands, while a poetry book might have a print run of 1000 copies and no expectations of a second printing. Economies of scale being what they are, the cost of publishing a small print run is much higher per copy than it is for a blockbuster novel. Print on demand is a relative of the book ATM where the publisher, rather than the consumer, prints books only when they are ordered. It can be useful for some small press publishers, though it also resembles vanity presses in ways that undermine its legitimacy.
Both Peter and Shaz Kim have problems with Epstein's style and persona. I'll admit that he's awfully prone to name-dropping, though I might be too if I had been friends with Robert Lowell and Edmund Wilson. (On the other hand, I disagree that Epstein is showing off with the list of titles on page 52 -- the point is their connection to his memory, not ours.) I also agree with Peter that many of Epstein's sentences are too long, though these are almost never grammatical errors. (By the way, a comma splice is never marked by the absence of a comma. I should make clear in class just what a comma splice is and is not.) I tend to think he's an excellent writer of a particular kind, and that his social circle and his vocabulary and sentence structure are closely related.
As to the ATM issue, Epstein is, of course, hilariously wrong. But so is almost everybody who predicts anything related to technology. (Who could have predicted the Kindle?) And there is a sense in which he's right, though at a different level and location. Let's think about why he made the prediction in the first place. What would a book ATM model solve? It would allow books to be produced on demand for individual readers. It would reduce overhead (rental space and the like) and would solve the problem of overstock (now currently addressed by remainders, including book outlets devoted to remainders exclusively). It would produce a text electronically but would not produce an electronic text. Epstein's imagined future involves a change in distribution and a shift to electronic and individualized book making, but it is premised on the idea that people would rather read a book than a computer screen. Now, the Kindle and similar e-ink technologies solve the same problem. The book is downloaded rather than printed, but the text of the Kindle "page" is real text: it does not require a lit screen and so it does not have the problem of backlighting or glare.
There's another way in which Epstein's ATM model is taking hold, and that is with what is called Print on Demand publishing. In traditional publishing, the publisher estimates demand and prints that many copies plus a few more in the first "print run." The first print run for a Steven King novel is in the hundreds of thousands, while a poetry book might have a print run of 1000 copies and no expectations of a second printing. Economies of scale being what they are, the cost of publishing a small print run is much higher per copy than it is for a blockbuster novel. Print on demand is a relative of the book ATM where the publisher, rather than the consumer, prints books only when they are ordered. It can be useful for some small press publishers, though it also resembles vanity presses in ways that undermine its legitimacy.
Both Peter and Shaz Kim have problems with Epstein's style and persona. I'll admit that he's awfully prone to name-dropping, though I might be too if I had been friends with Robert Lowell and Edmund Wilson. (On the other hand, I disagree that Epstein is showing off with the list of titles on page 52 -- the point is their connection to his memory, not ours.) I also agree with Peter that many of Epstein's sentences are too long, though these are almost never grammatical errors. (By the way, a comma splice is never marked by the absence of a comma. I should make clear in class just what a comma splice is and is not.) I tend to think he's an excellent writer of a particular kind, and that his social circle and his vocabulary and sentence structure are closely related.
While Epstein's guess about the book ATMs is somewhat silly, it does imply perhaps, on how technology can rapidly improve- who knows, maybe someday improved ATMs can crank out a chapter at a time instead of an entire book. As for the Kindle, it is not quite as unexpected. Back in middle school, I did a research paper on paper (redundant, I know) but even then, there was talk about paper that was read on a device and allowed readers to read many things on the same "sheet" of electronic paper. The source was from the Boston Globe in 2000, called "The E-paper chase" by Alex Pham. The article begins with reading a newspaper that is on a large electronic device where the words and look of the paper are produced by half-black, half-white microscopic ink balls. The Kindle seems to be the only logical product from all that research. If anyone's interested, here's the article link, containing the full article in a slightly scrambled form: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/periferia-l/message/701
ReplyDeleteAs Hermagoras said both innovations, both Epstein's guess and the actual invention of the electronic paper and e-ink lead to the similar things: to lowering cost and producing only what is needed. So, in a sense, Epstein isn't wholly wrong, he just went a different route in envisioning the future.